Friday, June 9, 2017
Notice of Environmental Project Report Addendum-B Line
163 comments:
Your comments are welcome. Please abide by the blog's policy on posting. This blog facilitates discussion from all sides of issues. Opposite viewpoints are welcome, provided they are respectful. Name calling is not allowed and any posts that violate the policy, will not be authorized to appear. This blog also reserves the right to exclude comments that are off topic or are otherwise unprofessional. This blog does not assume any liability whatsoever for comments posted. People posting comments or providing information on interviews, do so at their own risk.
This blog believes in freedom of speech and operates in the context of a democratic society, which many have fought and died for.
Views expressed by commentators or in articles that appear here, cannot be assumed to be espoused by The Hamiltonian staff or its publisher.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
LRT can replace a bus, on part of the route. But not all buses, we still need buses, cuz buses are more flexible than rail. More effective. More efficient. Less disruptive.
ReplyDeleteBuses can do what LRT can not...like make regular, frequent stops.
Thank goodness for buses. If not for buses, this plan would be a disaster.
5 years of construction ripping up roads and laying rails so buses can continue to follow trains.
Makes perfect sense.
1 lane for LRT, 1 lane for buses making regular stops. Only 2 lanes? Oh well. Those cars will find other routes that were not designed for the influx. How about an extra 60% car traffic at peak hours on Aberdeen? How do you like us so far?
Sound practice, makes sense.
Bring on the LRT!
Montreal has a subway trains and buses serving the same system with overlap in transpo tech and options and service areas.
DeleteToronto has subway, trains, light rail and bus's serving the same system with overlap in transpo tech and options and service areas.
New York has subway, trains, light rail, elevated trains and bus's serving the same system with overlap in transpo tech and options and service areas.
Chicago has bus, elevated trains and trains serving the same system with overlap in transpo tech and options and service areas.
Londons has subway, trains, light rail and bus's serving the same system with overlap in transpo tech and options and service areas.
Its s.o.p the world over. The fact that LRT and bus may occupy the same physical space on the system is not an issue.
LRT can replicate the functionality of an express bus, barely.
DeleteBut buses do it better. Cheaper. Less disruptive. Has any other City-ever-taken 2 of their busiest thoroughfares, reduced throughput by a minimum of 50% while greatly hindering the flow for the balance?
Of course not. That would be silly.
I see where Wynne is now proposing high speed rail between Windsor and Toronto. What I haven't seen is a proposal to run it down the 401, reducing it to 1 lane of vehicular traffic in each direction. Probably because that too, would be silly.
There is no unique benefit to LRT that can not be accomplished with buses. Nada.
Improving transit is not the goal. Never has been. And that is the issue. No appreciable benefit, significant cost and unnecessary disruption.
If the province backed crosstown BRT, nothing would be different except the transit technology and the higher operating costs. You'd still have a two-lane dedicated transit corridor going through the heart of the city. And the same council that axed a 2km bus lane delineated only by paint would have to summon enthusiasm for a separated artery unavailable to cars. Strains credulity. .
DeleteGemini
they did back crosstown BRT, that was the preference of Metrolinx.
DeleteSame Council though.
Max
In Oct 2006, Hamilton's council was looking for federal and provincial funding support toward establishing a BRT system They never got around to assembling a formal request, however, before Ontario's premier promised Hamilton LRT in June 2007. Subsequently, Metrolinx backed crosstown LRT over crosstown BRT in Feb 2010's King-Main Benefits Case. Council backed full crosstown LRT over BRT in Nov 2012's Rapid Ready.
DeleteMIcromegas
something in excess of 100 million dollars for the extension.
ReplyDeleteyears of chaotic, disruptive construction.
to construct 1 stop between Parkdale and Eastgate.
to service dwindling ridership.
it's a gamechanger.
it appears as if in this plan we will utilize the existing bridge on King over the RHVP. The structure was never designed or approved (yet) for such a use. Maybe the "wear your seat belt" light will come on during this stretch of the trip?
ReplyDeleteIf that structure requires replacement, costs will skyrocket, construction timelines will be extended, and associated disruption will be significant.
my understanding is the general public now has the ability to comment on the addendum and submit concerns. How is this accomplished? Can anyone direct me to the proper location?
ReplyDeleteMr. Johnson has confirmed his understanding that every tree "on the route" between Eastgate and McMaster will have to be removed. I take exception to such a proposal, and am unaware of any effort to consider alternative remedies.
I like tree's, and believe they benefit the entire community.
Sorry if this is off topic, but what is going on? Sometimes I can post, sometimes I can't.
ReplyDeleteThanks
Sorce
Sorce
DeleteWe are sorry for the inconvenience. A few users have unfortunately tried to hijack the good work done here on The Hamiltonian through different means aimed at making the administration of comments difficult. This has taken a lot out of our volunteers and thus we have had to take measures to deal with this. We are trying to strike a balance between allowing discussion and weeding out abuses of this service. Stay tuned...
The Hamiltonian Admin
Ok. Thanks
DeleteSorce
Hamilton stands to save thousands of dollars a year if it scales back on traffic lanes that aren't needed on roads that no longer get the traffic they were designed for, city hall officials say. And it's already in the process of identifying some of them.
ReplyDeleteThe city is filled with five- and six-lane roads that were once packed with traffic, particularly in the north end where many were designed for an industrial economy that no longer exists. They’ve fallen into disuse over the years, and taking them out of commission would save taxpayers money, said Gerry Davis, general manager of public works.
Maintaining one traffic lane for one kilometre costs as much as $12,000, Davis said. If the city identifies lanes that don’t get used much anymore and either puts in bicycle lanes or narrows the streets, it will save thousands in long-term maintenance costs.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/too-many-lanes-city-stands-to-save-thousands-cutting-excess-lanes-from-major-roads-1.2586358
Noted
and if the City proposed to install LRT on one of those underused arterial's, opposition to the plan would plummet.
DeleteMain near Kenilworth is on that list: 36.56% drop in traffic volume between 1999 and 2009-10.
Deletehttps://www.raisethehammer.org/article/2131/city_finally_notices_that_traffic_volumes_are_falling
Noted
I think this is a very dangerous proposition. The reason Hamilton does not need LRT, is that it does not have a congestion problem. The reason we don't, is because we have a system that works and has historically been able to meet our needs. It ain't broke, but let's break it.
ReplyDeleteSorce
LRT is not being built to solve todays "congestion" problem, it will help with future congestion. Its a transit solution for todays transit riders and future transit riders. Its an economic uplift program for today and the future that will bring increased development and commercial tax revenue today and in the future. Its is a neighbourhood renewal plan for todays citizens and future citizens. How it affects people in cars and their travel times and lives is the very last thing on the list to worry about, if at all.
DeleteLRT will create congestion. It solves nothing. Hypothetically speaking....but probably not. It is an unnecessary construction project which will throttle rejuvenation and accelerate gentrification. How it affects the majority is the impetus for the opposition.
Delete"How it affects the majority is the impetus for the opposition"
ReplyDeleteMajority? The majority of Hamiltonians are not opposed to the LRT as per the poll. %40 support LRT, %12 undecided, %48 opposed. No majority in opposition there.
Then theres the Council vote. 10 for LRT. 5 opposed. No majority in opposition there either.
So the people have spoken.
"people in cars"
Deleteaka the majority.
some people have spoken, and the majority were opposed.
DeleteMore residents will have their voices heard in the next municipal election. When Eisenberger, Green and Ferguson are all humbled and removed from office-arguably LRT Hamilton's "3 wise men"-the cacophony of dog whistles will reach a crescendo.
The people will still get their chance to be heard. Will you be listening?
"More residents will have their voices heard in the next municipal election."
DeleteHistorically, two-thirds of Hamilton's electorate don't vote in municipal elections. It is extremely rare for any Hamilton politician to secure the support of even a third of registered voters, let alone voting-age public. On average, the councillors elected in 2014 earned the support of just 22% of registered voters.
Voted
Here is the way it works. Most people in Hamilton do not vote because they are completely disillusioned with the culture at the hall and the politicians who are "councillors" So, they throw up their hands. Ask anyone about anything to do with city hall or local politics and they just say 'I don't follow that crap" or words to that affect. So, we get the same people getting back in, whihnc fulfils the prophecy and ever present reality of the culture of low expectations.
DeleteJust saying.
LRT in Hamilton is Phase 1 in the "incremental suffocation of car traffic" according to one City Councilor lacking the courage of their convictions.
ReplyDeleteHamilton Spectator 11/29/16 "Farr gets cold feet"
This is the plan. Hatched while you were sleeping.
Nat Phillips
Burlington Street must be Phase 2.
DeleteFor a street to be on the list for years-and slowly edge it way to the dubious distinction of "worst road on Ontario"-confirms political incompetence at the Municipal level.
The CAA's annual clickbait honeypot notwithstanding, council's decision to upgrade suburban roads while neglecting industrial access roads is not down to incompetence so much as pandering.
DeleteVoted
"LRT in Hamilton is Phase 1 in the "incremental suffocation of car traffic""
DeleteGood
Jimmy
Burlington Street
DeleteThis street was built for a time when workers in the thousands clogged the roads to get to work in the industrial area, said Coun. Chad Collins of Ward 5. Now, it has more capacity than traffic.
This is especially true closer to the QEW, where there are multiple bridges and roads on top of roads in “a Gardiner Expressway scenario,” Collins said.
“When those bridges and decks reach the end of their lifespan, is the decision to tear them down and rebuild them, or do we tear them down and live without them?”
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/hamilton/news/too-many-lanes-city-stands-to-save-thousands-cutting-excess-lanes-from-major-roads-1.2586358
Young adults are ditching driver's licenses at a quickening pace, according to a new study, raising a red flag for automakers as they grapple with the emergence of ride-sharing services and an indifferent attitude about cars.
Just over three in four people ages 20 to 24 in 2014 possessed a driver's license, according to the report released Tuesday by the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute.
The exact figure — 76.7% — represented a sharp decline from 79.7% in 2011, 82% in 2008 and 91.8% in 1983, according to the report by Michael Sivak and Brandon Schoettle.
Quite simply, cars are becoming less important or less accessible to Millennials.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2016/01/19/drivers-licenses-uber-lyft/78994526/
Tyre
good thing those young drivers are ditching their licenses-or having them suspended-at an alarming rate. They pose an inordinate threat on our roadways.
DeleteIn a thesis prepared by Aizhan Meirambayeva entitled "Evaluation of Ontarios street racers, stunt and aggressive driving legislation" we can see that those age 16-24 are more than 3x more likely to have their licences revoked for offences like "stunt driving" and "DUI" than those aged 25-64
Quite simply, we should be reconsidering whether or not "millenials" possess the maturity we often assume.
Share Tweet
ReplyDeleteChina debuts driverless train that only needs white painted lines as tracks
13.3k Share Tweet
IMAGE: VCG VIA GETTY IMAGES
BY YVETTE TAN
3 DAYS AGO
China's latest mode of public transportation is a bus, tram and train rolled into one.
Its maker, Chinese rail transit firm CRRC, is calling it a "smart bus," but it's a lot more than that. Like a train, it's modular and carriages can be added on; but like a bus, it runs on the road.
Amazingly, the carriage will follow a preset path and won't need a driver — but it won't need tracks to be laid, either. The train is equipped with sensors that'll allow it to follow white-dotted lines on the road.
SEE ALSO: Japan's new ultra-luxurious train is here, and tickets cost $10,000 each
"It is like having a virtual rail for the bus," said Feng Jianghua, chief engineer of CRRC.
The 30 metre long bus is able to fit 300 passengers across three carriages. More carriages can be added or removed if needed.
The smart bus, or Autonomous Rail Rapid Transit (ART), is touted to be much cheaper than subway or tram systems, since it doesn't require infrastructure to be laid down. This could prove to be the solution for many medium or small cities in China that can't afford to build train lines.
It costs up to $102 million to build a kilometre of a subway track, as compared to about $2 million for a standard length ART bus, according to a report by Chinese state media Xinhua.
A 6.5km ART line will be built in the Chinese city of Zhuzhou, with operations starting in 2018.
Driverless? What about the hundreds of local ATU members that drive bus who will loose their jobs? Bad plan.
DeleteMatthew
Whats the point?
DeleteAuto bus has no driver. LRT does.
Auto bus needs a dedicated lane not to be stuck in car traffic. Just like LRT.
Auto bus needs priority switching and signalling and dedicated right of ways to not get stuck in car traffic. Just like LRT.
Auto bus is not presently in use in any where in the world. LRT is in use all over the world.
LRT 1. Auto bus 0
Tim
Construction costs are much lower due to lighter weight vehicles requiring less roadbed upgrades and no tracks
DeleteAnd slave labour.
DeleteRimshot
“There is a level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime and say we need to go green, we need to start, you know, investing in solar."
Deletehttp://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/justin-trudeau-seemingly-admires-chinas-basic-dictatorship-at-toronto-fundraiser
Rimshot
Clearly MP Bob Bratina has zero concern for anyone making a living driving a vehicle. He should take a cue from Councillors Jackson and Councillor Green and show compassion and empathy and fight to keep Hamilton LRT operated by union people.
DeletePatriot Buster
Green and Jackson both voted to privatize the route and supported the Metrolinx proposal for non union outsiders to operate the line.
DeleteWith friends like these, ATU never stood a chance.
"HSR Drivers union launches LRT Campaign"
DeleteHamilton Spectator,6/20/17
Neither Green or Jackson are even referenced in the article.
Compassion, empathy on display.
"Green and Jackson both voted to privatize the route and supported the Metrolinx proposal for non union outsiders to operate the line."
DeleteThis hasnt happened.
Kelly
the Memorandum of Agreement, adopted and ratified by Council in a 10-5 vote (both Green and Jackson supported the MOA) in April of this year, under "Background" section "F" may help to clarify (maybe not)
DeleteJackson, to his credit, took great pains to highlight the implications of the statute, making it all a matter of public record.
Sorry you missed it.
Maybe one of them will have a change of heart and sign Mr. Tuck's petition. That would be a great way of putting any lingering confusion to rest.
Why wouldn't they?
I just signed the petition-already up to 266 names!
DeleteOne great benefit, you can see every name posted. I saw some familiar names, and was disappointed by some glaring absences!
Now we know.
"A petition must contain original signatures only, written directly on the face of the petition. Each person petitioning the Legislative Assembly must print his or her name and address and sign his or her name under the text of the petition. A petition must be addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Petitions addressed to the Government of Ontario, or to a particular minister will not be accepted. Petitions must be written, typewritten or printed. Email, faxed or photocopied petitions are not admissible and will not be presented."
Deletehttp://www.ontla.on.ca/lao/en/getting-involved/petitions/
Now we know.
Voted
266 signatories? Over 700 ATU 107 members work for the HSR.
DeleteMilk Run
300 in 2 days is pretty good.
Deletetook the LRT camp 2 years to get 3,000
Crawdaddy
the war on cars will spawn a war on our streets.
DeleteDoes anyone expect competitive labour-organized vs. disorganized-to cooperate on our roadways?
Buses blocking trains.
Can't wait.
and it took the no lrt hamilton group 2 years to get 189 signatures. petition is now closed with less than 200 people registering their opposition to lrt.
DeleteSimone
double the response in a fraction of the time.
DeleteGiven how those 189 morphed into a convincing majority, ATU support will clearly surpass any numbered opposition.
Not that this mattered to their Council friends, who had more pressing needs than friendship and loyalty at stake.
Money.
The ATU 107 website suggests that HSR routes "collectively carry over 30 million passengers per year," but the real number is
Deletebelow 22 million passengers a year. Even so, that's around 60,000 riders daily. I'm more interested in getting confidence votes from that constituency than union brothers and sisters and partisan agents from across the province and border states.
Heath Township
The HSR hasn't posted 30M+ annual ridership in over 30 years. If the ATU has mastered time travel, they can be trusted with light rail.
DeleteRimshot
"The Amalgamated Transit Union Local 113 represents over 10,000 men and women who operate and maintain North America’s third largest public transit system (after those in New York City and Mexico City.) We also represent 170 bus Operators of Veolia Transportation in York Region, just north of the City of Toronto."
Deletehttp://wemovetoronto.ca/about/
http://wemovetoronto.ca/support-the-keep-transit-public-campaign/
Win-Win
HSR posted 30M+ annual riders at some point, must have been long before my time. Everyone in Canada-and then some-riding our buses.
DeleteThat proves ridership on King is in decline.
In 1986, the HSR posted 31,482,000 boardings. It had a budget of $40.57 million ($80 million in 2016 dollars).
DeleteIn 2016, the HSR had an operating budget of $59 million.
Between 1986 and 2016, Hamilton's population increased by 27%.
Noted
I wonder how many traveled the King route-by bus-back in 1986, the glory days of transit?
DeleteBet it was more than last year.
funding increased by 50%
Deletewhile population grew by just 27%?
Just throw more money at it!
And destruct the most popular, most productive route in the system,... for years at a stretch.
That ought to fix it.
Ryan
You misread. The HSR's 2016 budget was half what it was in 1986, even as the city's population grew by 27%.
DeleteThis is, unsurprisingly, why every strategy for improving the HSR involves spending more money on its operation. That's how you improve service levels: More buses require more drivers.
Noted
one of us misread.
Delete"in 1986...it had a budget of 40.57 million"
"in 2016, the HSR had an operating budget of 59 million"
or an actual increase of over 46%.
We disagree on much, including the notion that "more buses, more drivers" is the only way of improving system service levels.
1986 budget is expressed in 1986 dollars (with a 2016 equivalent juxtaposed in parentheses, to reflect an equivalent comparative after accounting for 30 years of inflation). Alternately, you can adjust backward: $59 million in 2016 CAD is the equivalent of $29.91 million in 1986 CAD. (Source: Bank of Canada inflation calculator.) in absolute dollars, the transit budget was essentially chopped in half.
DeleteNoted
increased by 46%. In Canadian dollars.
DeleteJust like Ontario's health care spending increased 84% between 2003 and 2016, six times the province's population growth. Inflation is a state of mind.
DeleteReality
The ATU petition is now up to 353 signatures, many of them from Hamilton taxpayers. After today's flyers advising that Ontario Liberals privatized the 407, those numbers may climb.
DeleteHeath Township
??? "After today's flyers advising that Ontario Liberals privatized the 407,"
DeleteThe Mike Harris Tories privatised the 407
Correctamundo
"The Mike Harris Tories privatized the 407"
DeleteNot according to the cover of the ATU's (ironically) blue pamphlet, which credits the Wynne Liberals with privatizing the 407, though the Liberals were still 4 years from government when that deal was forged in April 1999. Wynne herself hadn't been elected as a school trustee at that point.
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/highway-407-sold-1.191438
Heath Township
the petition is now well over 400, but still no sign of the self described "friends" on Council.
DeleteIf you support ATU, and have not already voted in favour of privatization, why would you not sign the petition?
Helps that locals such as Toronto's 1587 are driving signatories with a geographically open-ended call to action ("The Ontario Liberals are privatizing your public transit, but there's still time to stop them and keep transit public! Sign the petition now!"). Even so, there are more than 2 million transit users and over 12,000 ATU members across the GTHA.
DeleteWhich came first: The shop steward or the shop? If alleged entitlements fall short and ATU leadership isn't just on cruise control, a union drive is inevitable. Seems possible that the ATU will represent the LRT employees, as they represent privately operated bus systems in York Region, Las Vegas, Boston, Phoenix, San Diego,etc.
Win-Win
Fun fact: In the last 30 years, the TTC has posted ridership declines just three times, and never managed more than three consecutive years of ridership increases in that time.
DeleteBig Shoes
You're half right.
DeleteThe TTC has increased system-wide ridership in 27 of the last 30 years.
The HSR has increased system-wide ridership in 11 of the last 30 years.
The relative independence of the TTC compared to the HSR is probably a root cause. The HSR is a ready target every time an election looms (which explains the three-year growth trends) and those who run the HSR obviously haven't championed transit, which is apparent to any user of the system.
Upshot? A private operator could post 60% ridership declines and they'd still be exceeding the City's benchmark.
Sigma Cub
Technology is evolving. That's the point.
ReplyDeleteSo we wait till what tech happens when to improve our public transit?
DeleteIf we wait five years for the Chinese Auto Bus, we will be five years away from Japanese Mag Lev Tech and people will say we should wait for that.
Then ten years from now just when were about to get Japanese Mag Lev tech we will be a few short years away from South Korean Teleportation Tech. So some people will say we should wait for that.
LRT is proven tech with proven benefits with a great track record that is in service the world over. Shovel ready and paid for.
Tim
"Green" technology...that requires the removal of every tree on the route.
ReplyDeleteHow's that for progressive thinking? It'll be good for your lungs.
A fair euphemism for the entire project. Barren.
A rather unpleasant embarrassment.
Hamilton Light Rail Transit (LRT) Environmental Pr - Hamilton Light Rail Transit (LRT) Environmental Pr - Appendix C-5_Part 1_Supplemental Tree Inventory notes:
Delete“The City of Hamilton By-law No.15-125 To Regulate Trees on or Affecting Public Property requires applications for tree removal for all public trees (no minimum diameter breast height (DBH)) within the ROW. In addition to the regulations listed in this By-law, the City of Hamilton Forestry Management Plan’s ‘Public Tree Removal Policy’ requires that if a project requires the removal of greater than or equal to 25 trees, a landscape and tree management plan must be prepared and submitted to the Forestry and Horticulture Section and City Council approval must be granted. The purpose of this Tree Inventory Report is to inventory all of the trees within the ROW and to assist with future permitting requirements for tree removals on Public Property.”
Can't find evidence that B-Line LRT implementation "requires the removal of every tree on the route", but it looks like there are thousands of opportunities for additional street tree placement in addition to current plantings in the road ROW.
Samara
Can't find evidence that there are any intentions for additional street tree placement.
DeleteDespite the obvious need.
The LRT in Hamilton is happening, like it or not. Its is a done deal which cant or wont be stopped. Trees or no trees. Ugly wires or no ugly wires. Some business will close, new ones will open.
ReplyDeleteTwo way street conversion, including Main Street. Dozens of new bike lanes. Reduced speed limits. Traffic calming measures. Whole roads and streets being taken away from cars and converted for other modes of travel. Streets and parking spots being taken away from cars and given over to other uses. Municipal parking rates going up.
And many many people that use cars and cars only will have their commuting times increased and their travel times increased.
This is the new reality. And were just getting started.
Jane J.
lots of losers there.....who wins? A deceased urbanist(who was firmly opposed to light rail)?
Delete"lots of losers there.....who wins"
DeleteWho loses and why?
Who wins? Everyone not in a car.
Jane J.
"the significant reduction in westbound traffic capacity on King St. east of 403 to Queenston would divert traffic to parallel routes, particularly Cannon and Barton, but also the Hunter/Aberdeen corridor."
DeleteIncreased traffic everywhere. Where it is unwanted.
Sitting on your porch on Cumberland, or Lawrence, or Stinson, enjoying a cup of tea, with now new, non stop, traffic rolling by morning, noon, and night. That will make things safer, cleaner.
"Winning"... Charlie Sheen style.
"Cannon and Barton, but also the Hunter/Aberdeen corridor."
DeleteGood. Lots of access road capacity exists on all these roads to take cars from King. No problem there.
"Sitting on your porch on Cumberland, or Lawrence, or Stinson, enjoying a cup of tea, with now new, non stop, traffic rolling by morning, noon, and night."
Heres what we have done and will do to keep these rat runners out of our neighbourhoods. Traffic calming measures like two way streets, middles street parking with protected bike lanes at curb, speed bums, photo radar, police. The first or second 100$ ticket Mr or Mrs Stoney Creek gets for trying to blow through our hood will drive them out.
Jane J
Here's what you have done. Taken traffic from streets designed for it, and diverted it into neighborhoods ill equipped to respond.
DeletePlacing your confidence in photo radar to protect those children at schools along the route seems irresponsible. Better, perhaps to provide crossing guards with bazookas.
I see more of those road side shrines in our future.
Too bad.
Pre-LRT, the City has classed these streets as follows:
DeleteBarton = Minor Arterial
Cannon west of Sherman = Minor Arterial
Cannon east of Sherman = Collector
Hunter = Collector
Stinson = Collector
Cumberland = Collector
Lawrence = Minor Arterial
Aberdeen west of Queen = Minor Arterial
Aberdeen east of Queen = Collector
Avid Reader
According to a January 2005 Road Classification Policy Paper...
DeleteUrban Collector roads are capable of accommodating up to 5,000 vehicles per day. Urban Minor Arterial roads are capable of accommodating 5,000 to 20,000 vehicles per day.
Avid Reader
"Placing your confidence in photo radar to protect those children at schools along the route seems irresponsible. Better, perhaps to provide crossing guards with bazookas"
DeletePolice are the last line of defense. Had great fun last week. We stood at our corner in blue short and blue shorts with my wifes hair dryer pointed down the street at incoming traffic. People musta thought we were cops with a radar gun cause they sloweeeed right down. A few people were upset, some were threatening harm to us. We were prepared for that. Try us.
Clint
first line of defence? Create a spectacle, people will slow and stare.
DeleteCallaghan
"people will slow.."
DeleteMission accomplished.
Clint
"first line of defence?"
DeleteFirst line of defense was working for and getting our reduced speeds, traffic calming measures, two way streets conversions, bollards, conversion of streets to cycle or pedestrian only, middle street parking with protected bike lanes at curb, speed bumps, curd bump outs, roundabouts and the use of millions of direct dollars in tax money spent by citizens through Participatory Budgets.
Second line is engaged citizens willing to do what it takes to make their own local streets safe.
Last line of defense is improved police measures.
Thats why we are winning the war against the car. Multiple strategies.
Willow Barnes
we are waging war against the car.
Deleteour defences are impenetrable.
Tyson
55,000 cars trips a day on sections of Main St.
Deleteand we are going to diminish capacity by 2/3.
Over 35,000 cars a day looking for a new route home.
Every collector in the area will be completely overwhelmed.
Safer? Cleaner?
More roadside shrines.
Clint
"In the past, designers of transit systems had usually chosen to locate rail routes by observing which bus routes were most heavily used, a pragmatic method that worked well in Toronto and elsewhere."
DeleteB Line corridor represents 40% of total HSR ridership. Makes sense.
JJ
in the past....long, long ago...once upon a time.
DeleteTodays reality? HSR ridership is in decline.
Makes little sense.
Ryan
HSR ridership is in decline outside the B-Line corridor, which posted ridership growth four times the system average in the 2009-2014 period: 20% growth, versus 5% system-wide. In terms of transit adoption by share of population, Wards 1-5 also post numbers far higher than elsewhere in the city. That's why it's a trunk line: The 1/5/10/51 are all overlaid for several kilometres. Finally: The three routes with the largest number of revenue passenger boardings are the 1, 51 and 10, all of which travel the B-Line corridor.
DeleteThat's why rapid transit on the B Line makes sense.
JJ
"In just one year, between September 2015 and September 2016, cash fares rose by about 18% from $2.55 to $3.00. To put this in perspective, over roughly the same period, hydro rates increased by "only" 15% for the average consumer"
DeleteAnd increases were even steeper for monthly pass holders.
http://www.thehamiltonian.net/2016/12/is-hsr-lrts-achilles-heal.html?m=1#comment-form
Reality
King ridership is in decline as well, actually diminished from a high water mark in 2009.
DeleteWhy are we even charging a fare? To recover what? I thought this was all "free"
Ryan
Ridership in the last year has dropped by 2% because council decided to charge more for access to a system that was identified as broken. That said, the ridership numbers are generated by adding up riders on all routes, city-wide. Where did you locate the granular ridership data broken out by route over the history of the route ("high water mark" being historically relative to all that came before)? Please link.
DeleteReality
From King Street Transit Only Lane Pilot Project (PW11079g), released January 14, 2015:
Delete"The most recent ridership counts for the Main-King-Queenston corridor suggest that transit ridership along the corridor has grown by approximately 20% over five years (2009 to 2014), or an average of about 4% per year. Ridership in the Main-King-Queenston corridor accounts for approximately 42% of the system wide ridership. Between 2009 and 2013 transit ridership across the HSR system grew by 4% (from 20,930,770 to 21,817,842), an average of approximately 1% per year. Based on the data, the Main-King-Queenston corridor carries a significant proportion of transit ridership in the City and ridership in this corridor is growing at a faster rate than the overall system. There is evidence that, from a transit ridership perspective, greater investment in this corridor is warranted."
https://thepublicrecord.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Jan_14_Bus_Lane_Report.pdf
Noted
Of particular note is Appendix D to Report PW11079g, which contains a comparison of transit ridership along King Street (all routes) in 2014 as compared to 2009, illustrating a 20.1% increase in King Street ridership in that period.
DeleteChristine Lee-Morrison Manager, Transit Strategy and Infrastructure, notes: "The most recent ridership counts suggest that transit ridership along the corridor through the downtown has grown by approximately 20% over 5 years, or an average of about 4% per year. Ridership in the Main-King-Queenston corridor accounts for approximately 42% of the system wide ridership. Between 2009 and 2013 transit ridership across the HSR system grew by 4% (from 20,930,770 to 21,817,842), an average of approximately 1% per year. Based on the data, the Main-King-Queenston corridor carries a significant proportion of transit ridership in the City and ridership in this corridor is growing at a faster rate than the overall system."
https://thepublicrecord.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Jan_14_Bus_Lane_Report.pdf
Noted
ridership is in decline, system wide. Down 3 years in a row.
DeleteA train will do little to improve ridership on the route,
The "system|" remains broken, and fares will not be going down to reflect ridership. I forecast ridership will continue to fall.
Ryan
ridership increased on King?
Deletewith buses?
without dedicated lanes?
just by improving service?
well isn't that something.
Great points.
Respectfully, you might be missing the greater point, which is this: The HSR's service "improvements" are relative. Capital and operational enhancements promised in March 2015's Ten Year Local Transit Strategy were to be 95% funded by the farebox. Council then punted said investments to the folllowing budget cycle, with the result being that new buses were only added in mid-2016. Which is after the 2009-2014 period under discussion. In addition to which, those "improvements" were only intended to "address current system deficiencies," with growth investment earmarked for the 2017-2024 period (Source: Appendix D to Report PW14015a).
DeleteIn addition to which, the need for transit priority measures and dedicated transit-only lanes on key corridors such as King-Main was identified in both the 2010 HSR Operational Review and the 2015 Ten Year Local Transit Strategy. Higher municipal transit funding commitments were also prescribed by both documents, deemed necessary to the cause of building toward the goal of 80-100 riders per capita (a target established in the City's Transportation Mastet Plan (2007).
Noted
no, I get it.
DeleteWe improved service(improvements)-with buses-and increased ridership.(while addressing current deficiencies)
Which was the goal.
Without all this nonsense.
Thanks again.
LRT is happening. It will improve nothing, but make a mess of my nest. My miserable existence will continue unabated. My med's may need to be modified, but, hey, that is par for the course.
ReplyDeleteChoo Choo!
Tarzan.
What the heck is this?
DeleteSam
1,209 otherwise healthy tree specimens have been identified and cataloged for removal to accommodate the overhead catenary system proposed for our light rail project. There will likely be collateral damage inflicted. LRT is Green?
ReplyDeleteLRT is happening.
Davey
FWIW, 150 of those "otherwise healthy trees" were catalogued in conditions Poor, Very Poor or Dead.
DeleteThere were a lot of things catalogued as part of the EA. That's because EA stands for Environmental Assessment. It doesn't necessarily follow that everything in the 1200+ page document is slated for destruction. If that were the case, someone would be able to link to council documents that prove as much. But they can't, because the project's design has yet to be finalized (see the original post in this thread) or the RFP bid process concluded.
Samara
Current King Street is faaaarr from green. Trees and all its a dirty mess.
DeleteLRTs have a proven track record of helping improve and uplift areas it runs through.
Cut down the trees.
The trees will grow back.
Easy peasey.
Goliath
The concern now is that some trees will be cut down? Anyone know if they're already tagged to be cut down as they are ash trees? Are we grasping at straws now to find things to nitpick about for on LRT? Could trees be replanted?
DeleteHave you done your part by using the city's program for having trees planted on your easement for free?
Goliath
yes.no.no.no.yes.
DeleteDavey
"Anyone know if they're already tagged to be cut down as they are ash trees?"
DeleteRoughly 400 trees catalogues in the EA are ash.
The City of Hamilton is in the midst of a 10yr plan to combat Emerald ash borer, and that has meant cutting down 2,300 ash trees annually, on track to fell 22,738 ash trees by 2022.
The City's Street Tree Planting Program plants around 7,000 trees a year at a cost of around $1.5M annually.
Avid Reader
are we now grasping at straws trying to justify the wanton and indiscriminate destruction of healthy trees?
DeleteThose 400 had not-and are still not-id'd for removal due to infestation. They are coming down to make way for an overhead catenary system. They got in the way.
Cut them down. Plant some more.
Makes sense.
Start the chainsaws.
DeleteZoltar
Anyone care to link to proof that all trees within the right of way along the 13-kilometer B-Line route are slated to be cut down? Or is this just knee-jerk speculation and personal bias?
DeleteSamara
imagine taking the time to identify, inspect and assess the tree's on the route, catalogue them under the title "potential threats" and then do absolutely nothing about them.
DeletePersonal injury lawyers dream of such circumstance.
Given the level of detail on the project to date, anything is possible.
But they are slated for removal, all 1,200 plus "at road level, on the route"
Anyone have proof of identification of trees as "potential threats"?
DeleteSamara
Sorry Ive been out of the loop fer a while. Last time I checked the anti LRT people were worried about tax increases, cost overuns, bankrupt provinces, referendums, polls, and a zillion other things.
ReplyDeleteNow what are the anti LRT people worried about since all the others issues have been addressed?
Trees and wires.
Trees and wires?
Ok.
Tina Womack
Tree's and wires?
DeleteEnvironment and appearance?
No LRT advocate worth it's salt cares about effectiveness, design, or impact. The proof is in the pudding.
Disrupt "auto culture" is Priority 1.
There is no Priority 2.
Disrupting the "auto culture" is a valid and worthwhile priority.
DeleteRoger
not shared by the majority. Until then.
DeleteA skewed outlook to say the least. The dehumanizing "it" with regard to "LRT advocate" speaks volumes about how you view this debate.
ReplyDeleteRapid transit requires dedicated lanes. Whether it was the hypothetical city-wide BRT that you have advocated for or the LRT that is funded and approved, rapid transit dedicates lane kilometres to transit. BLAST would dedicate around 100 lane kilometres of road to rapid transit use. That alters (or, in your chosen parlance, "disrupts") the traffic calculus but it is an over-salted caricature of a misrepresentation to say that this is a priority of Hamilton LRT. A transportation corridor is being re-engineered. That necessarily changes the status quo.
Consider that the City's 2007 Transportaction Master Plan articulated a vision of a community that accommodated all modes of use and aimed to achieve a 20% reduction in vehicle trips by 2031, along with reaching 100 transit trips per capita, more than double where we are today. That official plan was authored and ratified by councillors City-wide, before B-Line LRT was ever floated by the province.
Samara
Another City document relevant to this thread: 2002's Putting People First: The New Land Use Plan for Downtown Hamilton.
Delete"Upon adoption by City Council the Secondary Plan will become part of the City’s Official Plan meaning that Council is legally obligated to implement its policies."
http://www.investinhamilton.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Downtown_Secondary_Plan_2004.pdf
Samara
nothing "rapid" about this proposal.
Delete27 km/hr.
Vapid, perhaps, but not rapid.
In fact, this train accomplishes nothing that the King Express wasn't providing.
And it still needs buses in order to provide an acceptable level of service.
What is Hamilton LRT'S priority?
Davey
Current travel time on B Line Eastgate to Mac 40 minutes in perfect conditions with no traffic and no long boarding or no wheelchair loading. Its travel only during certain times days and months of the year.
DeleteTravel time on LRT Eastgate to Mac is 36 minute every time all day long all week long every trip.
Stan
4 minutes.
DeleteGamechanger. Easily worth a billion dollars.
The LRT has many many proven benefits. All of these many many benefits collectively are easily worth a billion dollars.
DeleteHaving a speedier trip is one benefit.
No one aspect should be used to judge the entire project.
Unless youre someone that is constantly saying we should give up 1 billion plus in infra upgrades over aesthetics and foliage.
Randall Coffee
you can't judge success on the 4 minutes alone.
Deleteyou have to take into consideration all of the hypothetical and imagined benefit as well.
then things look better.
more pertinent reading, direct from the addendum, under mitigation measures and net effects:
ReplyDelete"...if tree removal can not occur outside of the migratory bird nesting window, then undertake a pre clearing nesting bird survey by a competent avian biologist"
Nothing ambiguous about that statement....just more collateral damage.
Birds will suffer too.
Makes sense.
Average speed of the 1 King is 18kmh, so 50% more rapid than the status quo HSR reality.
ReplyDeleteMidge
neither are rapid.
DeleteA car is rapid. Till LRT goes in. Then the car will be slower than both the bus and the LRT. And possibly walking.
DeleteAnton
Which is a big improvement over the status quo.
DeleteAnton
$1 Billion investment to slow down transit.
DeleteGood plan.
Makes sense.
status quo aka buses following trains
Deletedone all over the world
Loder
Metrolinx's King-Main Rapid Transit Benefits Case cited LRT at "an overall average speed of 34 km/h with appropriate signal priorities and/or pre-emotion".
Deletehttp://www.metrolinx.com/en/regionalplanning/projectevaluation/benefitscases/Benefits_Case-Hamilton.pdf
Q*bert
Pre-emption. Accursed autocorrect.
DeleteQ*bert
the King Express averaged 40 km/hr
DeleteFred
FWIW, there is no route called "King Express." But if you don't use the transit system it's arguably moot.
DeleteA bus travelling 40 km/h on average would cover 14km in 21 minutes. The HSR's schedule shows that it currently takes the 10 Express 31-37 minutes to travel the 14 km from Emerson to Eastgate. That's an average speed of between 23km/h and 27km/h between Eastgate and McMaster. The 1 King takes 47-49 minutes to cover the same distance, for an average speed of 17-18km/h.
http://www2.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/5078DFE7-3CEB-4730-A152-336852CCCE4A/0/June2014_Bline.pdf
These figures are consistent with the data in the 2010 HSR Operational Review. See page 19: "HSR service speeds are in almost all cases less than 40km/h... Further, most of the downtown area (below the escarpment) has average speeds of under 20 km/h." Page 21, Exhibit 3-7: Average Speeds, shows that with the exception of a block of King at Wellington, a block of Main by the Parkdale Rexall and the block just east of the RHVP, King and Main/Queenston only get above 30km/h on average east of Lake Avenue in Stoney Creek.
http://www2.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/9D868772-92BE-4A69-B874-42A1081726CD/0/TTRFinalReport.pdf
Noted
We know less intrusive, more appealing options are in use elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteWho determined we would take the cheapest, least attractive mode of light rail available?
Fred
Dozens of city research groups. Hundreds of researchers. Dozens of academics. Untold traffic experts and transportation engineers. Numerous decision making teams. City council.
DeleteBrad
City Council? Aren't they the ones that killed our bus only lane?
DeleteCurious bunch.
Fred.
"$1 Billion investment to slow down transit"
ReplyDeleteAs you have already admitted, LRT and HSR riders will be speeding up.
Only car drivers will be slowing down.
Warren
neither LRT or HSR will be speeding up.
DeleteThis plan actually slows the buses as well, and light rail can not go any slower and continue forward.
27 km/hr.
Metrolinx's King-Main Benefits Case Analysis makes note of the average speeds of rapid transit modes under consideration.
DeleteBRT: 25 km/h
LRT: 34 km/h
HSR: 19 km/h*
*The HSR's average bus speed, system wide, as noted in the 2010 HSR Operational Review, was 18.7 km.
Noted
the same op/review had the King Express averaging 40 km/hr.
DeleteRecognized
What page is the 10 Express' average speed of 40 km/h mentioned? Citation, please.
DeleteHere's what I found in the 2010 HSR Operational Review.
Page 19: "HSR service speeds are in almost all cases less than 40km/h... Further, most of the downtown area (below the escarpment) has average speeds of under 20 km/h." Page 21, Exhibit 3-7: Average Speeds, shows that with the exception of a block of King at Wellington, a block of Main by the Parkdale Rexall and the block just east of the RHVP, King and Main/Queenston only get above 30km/h on average east of Lake Avenue in Stoney Creek.
The HSR's schedule shows that it currently takes the 10 Express 31-37minutes to travel the 13 km from Emerson to Eastgate. That's an average speed of between 21km/h and 25km/h between Eastgate and McMaster.
Noted
takes me just over 20 minutes from Pottruff to Mac, everyday of the week. Then the driver sits and has a smoke, before heading off in the other direction.
Delete20km/hr? It would take twice as long.
Julio
Out of curiosity, what HSR route dead-ends at McMaster?
DeleteMama Pyjama
only ambulances dead end at Mac, not buses.
DeleteJulio
One of the impacts of LRT, is that it will result in people not living inside the core, not driving anywhere near the core because noone wants to drive in congestion. So, businesses further east will flourish. Eastgate will probably get busy again. Possibly the Centre Mall, although it's a nightmare there- poor design.
ReplyDeleteSorce
The HSR's schedule shows that it currently takes the 1 King 47-49 minutes to travel the 13 km from Emerson to Eastgate. That's an average speed of between 15.9km/h and 16.6km/h.
ReplyDeleteNoted
while making nearly 3 times as many stops as LRT. Enhanced service has consequence.
DeleteThe King Express-which LRT is replacing-, averaged 40 km/hr on the route,as opposed to LRT, which the City predicts will move at an avg speed of 27km/hr.
Rapid transit....which is slower.
Makes sense
Recognized
Any evidence of the 10 Express' average speed of 40 km/h? Care to link to a citation? Because your claim flies in the face of the HSR's own schedules and the reality evident to any transit user.
DeleteHere's what I found in the 2010 HSR Operational Review.
Page 19: "HSR service speeds are in almost all cases less than 40km/h... Further, most of the downtown area (below the escarpment) has average speeds of under 20 km/h." Page 21, Exhibit 3-7: Average Speeds, shows that with the exception of a block of King at Wellington, a block of Main by the Parkdale Rexall and the block just east of the RHVP, King and Main/Queenston only get above 30km/h on average east of Lake Avenue in Stoney Creek.
The HSR's schedule shows that it currently takes the 10 Express 31-37minutes to travel the 13 km from Emerson to Eastgate. That's an average speed of between 21km/h and 25km/h between Eastgate and McMaster.
To recap...
1 King: 16 km/h average speed
HSR (city-wide system): 19 km/h average speed
10 Express: 23 km/h average speed
B-Line BRT: 25 km/h average speed
B-Line LRT: 34 km/h average speed
Sources: HSR schedules (1 & 10); 2010 HSR Operational Review; Metrolinx's King-Main Benefits Case Analysis
Noted
it's in there,same 2010 HSR Operational Review you are referencing, but I will let you find it. Might help.
DeleteTruth is, if some of the new measures like signal and transit priority-measures LRT needs to hit the hypothetical 27 km/hr avg speed forecast by the City- had been adopted for buses, there average speed would have increased even further.
Recognized
"Truth is, if some of the new measures like signal and transit priority-measures LRT needs to hit the hypothetical 27 km/hr avg speed forecast by the City- had been adopted for buses, there average speed would have increased even further."
DeleteThey tried that. Called bus only lane. The car warriors didnt like it. Slowed em down.
Ted
Hamilton Street Railway Operational Review:
Deletehttp://www2.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/9D868772-92BE-4A69-B874-42A1081726CD/0/TTRFinalReport.pdf
Quoted
If crosstown buses average 40 km/h through downtown, cars must average 80-100 km/h through urban neighbourhoods. Which seems a little abnormal, and something that any sane public official would want to remedy. 30 km/h is an ideal. People will still drive 50 km/h because humans are apparently wired that way.
DeleteZebra
not 40 km/hr "through downtown"-it is the slowest spot on the route.
Delete40km/hr avg from Eastgate to Mac.
Recognized
Snazzy anecdote. Not supported by evidence, however.
DeleteA bus travelling 40 km/h on average would cover 14km in 21 minutes. The HSR's schedule shows that it currently takes the 10 Express 31-37 minutes to travel the 14 km from Emerson to Eastgate. That's an average speed of between 23km/h and 27km/h between Eastgate and McMaster. The 1 King takes 47-49 minutes to cover the same distance, for an average speed of 17-18km/h.
http://www2.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/5078DFE7-3CEB-4730-A152-336852CCCE4A/0/June2014_Bline.pdf
These figures are consistent with the data in the 2010 HSR Operational Review. See page 19: "HSR service speeds are in almost all cases less than 40km/h... Further, most of the downtown area (below the escarpment) has average speeds of under 20 km/h." Page 21, Exhibit 3-7: Average Speeds, shows that with the exception of a block of King at Wellington, a block of Main by the Parkdale Rexall and the block just east of the RHVP, King and Main/Queenston only get above 30km/h on average east of Lake Avenue in Stoney Creek.
Agreed that the stretch of the 10 Express' route that lies between University Plaza and Eastgate Square is the slowest part, and nowhere close to 40 km/h. It's only when buses get into sprawl country that they start to pick up speed.
http://www2.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/9D868772-92BE-4A69-B874-42A1081726CD/0/TTRFinalReport.pdf
Noted
Exhibit 3-7: Average Speeds
Deletehttp://www2.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/9D868772-92BE-4A69-B874-42A1081726CD/0/TTRFinalReport.pdf
30-40km bus speeds are visibly concentrated east of Centennial, south if Rymal and on the Wilson Street hill.
Noted
according to Paul Johnson, Director of Hamilton's LRT office, LRT Hamilton will average 27 km/hr.
Delete"That's the plan"
Hamilton Spectator "LRT plans ready for public viewing" 4/27/16
According to "Noted" the 10 Express averaged 27 km/hr.
Along the same route.
$1Billion
To improve nothing.
Hamilton has 6300 lane kilometres of road. 10% of Hamilton's population uses public transit. Make 630 km of local roads transit-only. Equilibrium achieved!
DeleteNostrum
the system is broken, ridership is in decline.
ReplyDeleteSo we will forego addressing identified shortcomings, and instead destruct our busiest, most productive route, for years at a time, to do very little-if anything-to improve service.
Makes sense.
Discourage every discretionary user from considering public transit as a viable alternative.
Disrupt, delay, and on down the road.
The stage has been set, it is going to be quite a performance.
Here's the thing: The main challenge is not provincial, it's municipal. The LRT funds cannot be applied as you wish. Like any infrastructure investment, funding is tied to the project. Council embraced the Ten Year Local Transit Strategy's plan to address system deficiencies (the first two years of the plan) but declined to invest further in this budget cycle. But the plan can be rejoined in 2018, with the end result being that the city's transit system is in growth mode. Council just has to stick to its official plans and not get distracted by election year opportunism.
DeleteThe recent decline in ridership was the result of council's wronghededness -- asking people to pay more on promise of expanded service, then refusing to expand service. It's a result that was explicitly predicted by the HSR's own budget reporting. And just as the problem was one of council's making, so tobthe solution is an easy fix: Do what you say you're going to do.
Makes sense.
Noted
you prescribe expanded service means only one thing...more buses. And that is exactly what we did-added more buses-and still ridership declined.
DeleteAll Provincial revenue can be applied as we wish. Honest. We should try that.
We agree the problems begin locally, then extend to the provincial level.
So how would you invest in local transit? What would your priorities be? I get a sense that you see problems everywhere and you're against most everything, but I'm less clear on the solution you favour.
DeleteOmnivore
The only hope for LRT is these "Millennials" -is that what you call them, that have a completely different mindset that largely benefits from the hard work the generation before them put in. Many don't want a car. So, maybe they are the future answer.
ReplyDeleteBut in the meantime, LRT will be very challenged by the fact that we are still are a car culture and car technology may prove very resilient- in which case, LRT may be very short term, if it survives.
Sorce
looks as though a group of businesses-at least 9 different entities- has aligned to demand a complete EA for the entire project.
ReplyDeleteNo opposition?
The Ministry response will prove interesting.
"Pushing back against LRT"
ReplyDeleteThe Bay Observer 7/12/17